To think everyone's children can't be "very bright"

[DrinkFromMyFountain]

Because a good 80% or posters/people in RL seem to refer to their kids as "very bright", surely 80% of kids can't be above average?

As the proud mother of a three month old I'm not fussed if my DS is "bright" or not, if he isn't academic I'm sure he will have other talents!

I hereby declare I shan't constantly boast about how bright he is unless he is a full in genius . As my mother always said, there is nothing wrong with being average.

I dont like much of Wellwobblys last post, but am not sure that English is her first language.

Not all areas have pre school home visits either. They certainly don't here. Just thought I'd point that out!

There is only one bright child in our family. My nephew. Gifted, high IQ, been winning chess games etc against adults in tournaments since he was 8 years old. He is truly amazing and he's an all rounder. Amazing at sport as well, everything he does he excels at with ease. That's not to say that his intelligence doesn't cause problems, he gets bored at school, nothing is a challenge for him.

I have five children, three of them are below average. One is average and the other is too young for me to say.

What they all have though is amazing determination. They work to the best of their ability and never give up. I think that will get them far in life. They push themselves and put every effort into their work.

I'm afraid Mrs DV there is no escaping the fact that statistically higher IQ parents have higher IQ DCs.

We shouldn't shy away from that fact we should use it to devise ways to help those DCs who aren't dealt this genetic leg up achieve their maximum potential.

We need government policies and teaching methods that accept the less able children will need extra help to ensure they get the most out of their time in school. Cutting money to Sure Start is the absolute opposite of this.

I live in a rural area with very rich, graduate commuters on the one hand, who have genetically and financially advantaged DCs.

On the other we have a number of DCs who's parents and grandparents have lived here for generations doing manual jobs, many of whom didn't enjoy school and their DCs don't either.

Their parents have seen their brighter school friends go to grammar school and move away and the commuters move in.

House prices have rocketed and rural wages have not.

We desperately need government action on housing, transport costs, providing buses and ensuring subsidised nursery and extra curricular activities are available to these DCs and schools face up to their needs.

But no! Sure start is cut, rural libraries and swimming pools are cut, fucking Ofsted come along and try and take all the fun enrichment activities out the time table. Leaving only expensive skiing etc. in the holidays.

Add to this the fact they are meant to stay in education, with minimal financial support to 18, I can't see the gap in inequality closing at all.

I have a DS who is described by his teachers as bright. He's above average but not exceptional, he picks concepts up quickly, is alert, logical and follows instruction well. He's driven and competitive, a strong desire to do well. He's an easy teach.

I also have a DD who is the opposite. She's a dreamer, can take ages to grasp concepts, is average in terms of NC levels and is not a pleaser. She likes to stay under the radar. She has a much better grasp of those things that IQ doesn't measure, like EI and inference.

I suspect they would score very differently in an IQ test. I wouldn't place much value on it though.

It is of limited specific use depending on context. That said though, it isn't unusual for a child whose iq scores extremely high, to be equally highly adept in picking up information, manipulating it, and using it in context. So, often, those who score 'high' in iq tests will also be the ones that teachers, parents, and bob walking past in the street think (and comment) 'gosh, she/ he's bright, eh?'

It isn't hard and fast - there are children who score highly but have significantly lower social skills and their comprehension and knowledge aren't as accessible to teachers, parents, and other folk. And there are children who struggle to maintain focus, but when they can, can produce outstanding complex understanding and display a much greater depth of knowledge than their peer group...

Iq is interesting. For at least one of my kids, her iq score has meant that she is taken seriously as a student in school. She would have been one of the children written written off, housed in an institution, and left to rot if she had been born sooner. (She has cerebral palsy. Passers by tend to pat her on the head, 'aw bless' and write her off as a tragedy.) she has a higher iq than her paediatrician, taught herself to read before she could talk, and intends to study law.

Interestingly, we only had her tested (at five) because we were trying emigrate, and no one wants a kid with a label like cp. She was deemed to be a likely 'burden on the state' for the country we were moving to, and our immigration was likely to be turned down as a result. So, we were told we had to prove she didn't have a learning disability. Whether mn posters like iq tests or not, governments officials do (I'm not making any comments about the efficacy). So, we had to fork out for a full clinical psych/ ed psych assessment. The results of this (of course the immigration had never met my child, and so were solely relying on the scores on paper) meant that we were able to move.

I do understand that high iq is often dismissed as meaningless - but for dd1 it means she is overturning societal expectations of people with disabilities, and actually being given the opportunity of an education in line with her ability, not her disability. So, you know what, it works for me as a fairly blunt tool.

Conversely, for those who test at a much lower score, it can be used by parents and teachers to secure more funding and support for the child to enable to reach their own potential.

Measures such as iq might be political, but they are pretty much the only tool that parents of children with sn have to try and force the system into producing support. (I'm also talking about other centile driven assessments)

To dismiss them as meaningless is easy enough when you aren't relying on them to prove that your child needs more support.

... And you don't have any other way of doing it...

IME, round our way "bright" seems to be a euphemism for average or slightly above average. In the context of: parents have been called in to school because of DC's bad behaviour. During the meeting, the teacher says "well, he's a bright boy," meaning "I don't think there are any SEN that are making him kick off like this," but the parents hear "My child is misbehaving because they are so clever they get bored," and that's what they tell everyone at the school gates.

Or they are a tool to let you access help. Like I said - blunt tool, but if it's the one in use by the agencies responsible for providing support in order to allocate support, then you use the tools available to you.

I do admire your insistence in the face of what might be an easier ride in order to gain support (I'm sure that it has been otherwise described as 'cutting nose off to spite face') and I'm not a fan of the hoop jumping required to access support.

Surely it makes more sense to conform to the procedures currently in place, whilst campaigning for change? (Genuinely interested - I do admire those who have the strength to go against the grain - but as you say, many people don't have that option).

(And in the face of those with v high iq but severe autism, you would need additional tests, of course, as the iq wouldn't present a full picture. Ds1 has a high iq but struggles a little in this way - in his case, we use the high iq to 'prove' to the authorities that he is not meeting his potential, and the results of the other tests (a whole schwack of them, can't list off head) that the asd is the reason, and so he needs support with that to fulfil his potential.

Like I said, I don't like constant testing, but I'm not above doing it and using the results to force the hand of those who hold the purse strings...

MrsD I've found your posts on this thread so interesting.

I agree with you re IQ tests being a negative tool and also, just generally bollocks.

Commutterbelt - that's pecisely what we are told on MN, its either your dc is bright, or super bright even, or dim. If they are anything below bright, they're only fit for the scrapheap. Nice.

To be honest i enjoy reading all sorts of threads including the educational ones on MN, you often pick up bits and pieces of interesting viewpoints, i dont believe all the crap spouted by all the self proclaimed experts whose dc just so happen to be in the 'bright' category. Children all develop at different rates, some peak early and some just get better bit by bit over a longer period, with a good education they are all able to reach their full potential in the end. Not everybody will get into grammar school, nor able to afford private education, infact the majority will go to bog standard comps and onto a combination of RG and new universities.

Ambitious people will forge good careers for themselves regardless of which uni they went to and work for companies side by side with the super bright kids of yesterday in the end its your work ethic AND your PERSONALITY that will get you through doors, afterall no matter how bright you are, after your 1st yr of work post gradation no one really asks? Where did you go to school?. Ive never been asked and had a very good career in the city. It does make me laugh some of the rubbish spouted on those threads sometimes, in most cases only applying to one or two specific career paths.

MrsDeVere. Dear MrsDeVere. I agree with many of your posts, but not always. And I also know that you are generally very warm hearted.

But your natural and understandabel fear of IQ tests should not get in the way of some truths about them.

Yes, people can have a high IQ but not use their abilities well.
Yes, people can have a high IQ but be emotionally igm=norant. fwiw, I think that applies to a surprisingly large amount of people with large IQs. Again, fwiw, I sometimes think that blood goes to some parts of their brains and not others[just a personal, probably unsubstantiated theory of mine!]
Yes, in some case and in some jobs, those with lower IQs can do that job better.

Havea0 define low IQ though?

For example - I doubt I'll ever score highly on them because I am crap at maths (think I should have been diagnosed with discaclia at school) . I've seen IQ tests though never done one.

As MrsD points out being labelled with a low IQ really isn't the same as being labelled as having a high one.

You can use a low test score to force support. I know a lot of people who hope for low scores for that reason, as they are struggling to access support any other way.

As I said, I'm very admiring of that ethical stance, but I wonder how much practical use it is? As you are using parents who themselves have learning disabilities as a case in point, how many are going to have the wherewithal to access adequate support for their child if they refuse testing? I've seen so many children not get any support because their parents were incapable of advocating on their behalf.

I'm largely not talking about LEA assessments. They are of course corner-cutting, cheap, and don't provide a full picture by their very nature. A full clinical psych/ ed psych report where a battery of testing is completing (including WISC or whatever iq test) will give a much fuller picture. The obvious response is that most people can't afford to pay for full testing (a valid point) unless they can access charity funding etc (which also means it is self-selecting unless parents are capable of applying for those funds themselves, or have a good key worker to do it for them).

It could easily be said that it would be more ethical to campaign for full and complete testing of all children in this position, to ensure a full picture is provided to determine support, than to refuse one particular test because in isolation it does not meet needs...

MrsDevere - i completely agree, IQ tests are a way of pinning a label on person that says, "this is how far you can go, thats your lot" or"we are different, a rare breed, special, entitled" its all bollocks as far as im concerned. I remember one MNer posted once that bith she and her dh were veryhigh achieving successful academics, both had Masters degrees and i think dh had a Phd. For some reason they got their IQ done and both came out just over 100! They were both shocked and couldn't understand it. The Mner said if she had had her IQ test done when she was a lot younger she may not have ever worked so hard, gone to uni etc because she would have just believed she wasn't bright, non academic and dim